PLC 6

 Mikki Hebl

Mikki Hebl is the Martha and Henry Malcolm Lovett Chair of Psychology, and Professor of Management at Rice University. Her research involves discrimination issues, and focuses on diversity. She falls into the visible minority group of women. In the interview she highlights the issue of subtle sexism towards women in the workplace, and how even if discrimination is not blunt, it is still harmful. Things like choice of language, attentiveness to concerns, and separate standards all contribute to harmful workplace activities. She supports the idea of women maintaining male allies and advocating for themselves.

One thing she mentions is choice of language. when referrals have been made, male applicants usually contain words like "assertive and independent" while female workers get words like "caring" and "kind". She says this type of word choice is subtle but holds women back from opportunities. Another example she shares is that women often get labelled as having lots of potential to be good, while men are simply labelled as good at their job.

Another factor she mentions is overt discrimination. These are the blatant comments made by peers that degrade women or poke fun at their gender pertaining to their work ethic. While more uncommon nowadays, it unfortunately still exists in the workplace and is the most harmful kind of discrimination, because it often creates awkward situations which are uncomfortable enough that it becomes easier to just let them slide, or forget about them.

Hebl also mentions the problem of  instabilities or "micro-transgressions". These are things which are more physical than verbal, things like negative body language, or an aversion to speaking to women. These are the most subtle yet the most common type of discrimination towards women as it can't really be complained against as easily. This type can usually be passed off as simply not getting along with somebody, however it most commonly affects women. 

Strategies

One strategy could be to implement a workplace diversity training day. Through human resources, training can be provided which outlines these concerns, why they should stop, and how they can be stopped. Things like micro-agressions can happen almost subconsciously, so making employees conscious of these behaviors can help them look out for them and prevent them in the future.

A management strategy to be implemented could be an adequate complaint system. Having a resource available to provide complaints or concerns to could help minorities feel safer or more heard for their struggles. There could be an employee dedicated to openly hearing complaints and dealing with them accordingly. Anonymity is key in this scenario, so complaints should be dealt with while doing as much as possible to protect the victims in order to not jeopardize their workplace reputation or relationships.

Another less formal strategy would be to hire managers who are attentive, and outline these concerns in their hiring process. On duty managers can be made aware of these discriminatory behaviors and what to look out for, to hopefully prevent any incidents before they occur. This strategy really relies on values, it may make the hiring process more lengthily but by hiring someone who truly looks out for the safety and equality of their staff can go a long way in helping employees succeed.

Regular check ins could also be helpful, there could be a monthly meeting between staff members with HR to converse about how the workplace culture has been. this could provide ample opportunity for anyone with concerns to raise them, and also keep this issue in the minds of staff so they are more aware of their daily actions.

Another strategy could be to provide support services. This strategy shouldn't be performed on it's own, but accompanied by some of the other above. In the event that workplace discrimination does occur, once a complaint is filed the employee may still need support and it might be best if it comes from an external source outside of work. The company should advertise and provide information of local support groups, online and in-person, for employees to access as they need them.

Another more harsh strategy option could be to actively show reprimand to those who discriminate. In cases of incidents involving blatant verbal discrimination, the company could choose to send a message by suspending or even terminating the employee who has committed the offence. This might be more acceptable to apply to employees who are repeat offenders, if a person acts in discriminatory ways multiple times and shows no change in behavior it could be beneficial for company image and internal culture to eliminate them.